In 1935, Queensland was suffering significant damage to its sugarcane crop from the cane beetle. To contain the beetle, 101 toads were released. They were expected to eat the beetles, but they didn’t. Instead, they thrived, spreading rapidly; today, these poisonous toads present a serious and worsening problem across northern Australia, moving southwards.
In this way, what was thought to be a solution ended up being a problem. The toads failed to solve the initial problem; the cane beetle remains, although the cane toads themselves are far more concerning. This is a story well known in Australia. Even successful solutions, acknowledged by all, may still become a problem if continued beyond their time.
In the 1950s, Australia faced a major housing problem. The combination of returned soldiers, the beginning of the ‘baby boom’ and increasing numbers of refugees and migrants led to a rapid rise in population. Demand for housing so far outstripped supply that it was not uncommon for three families to share one house. This, indeed, was the situation for my family when we arrived in 1950. The problem was visible and obvious to all, and the Government addressed it by funding large housing estates. The companies paid to undertake this work grew in size because that was what was needed to get the job done. They were successful.
In the mid 1980s, Australia faced a new problem; infrastructure assets were approaching the age at which they would need renewal, and this hadn’t been planned for. This time, the problem was not at all obvious; it was not until the cost of capital consumption had been recognised, enabling the likely, and extremely high, future costs of infrastructure asset renewal to be demonstrated, that it was recognised as needing attention. This was not amenable to a simple ‘throw more money at it’ solution as the earlier problem had been, and, in any case, the Government no longer had plentiful funds. This problem needed a very different solution, and it found it in the development of a new class of specialists: the Asset Managers.
But back to our cane toads. The extreme urgency of the housing problem had largely passed by the mid-1960s, but the development companies, now very large and influential with the Government, were able to encourage continued growth of infrastructure. However, as Asset Managers strove to bring the renewal problem under control, it became clear that creating new infrastructure only made the task of renewal more difficult, as demonstrated by two major case studies in Victoria and South Australia.
Now, cane toads and large development companies are not malevolent; they are simply aiming to survive, as all organisms and organisations are designed to do.
Where do we, as Asset Managers, stand? Before assuming we are all necessarily on the side of the angels, we need to consider that we can, in our turn, also become cane toads. When the need was to plan for and manage renewal, we were the solution. To address that problem, we considered extending the lifespan of our existing assets; this gave us time to plan for change. And we had time! While we could see what needed to be done, it didn’t have to be done immediately. So we adopted a slow and thoughtful way of moving. Is this still appropriate? Life cycle renewal models were then our tool of choice. Are they still?
Are we acting as if the problem of the mid-1980s remains today’s problem, and that asset longevity is the solution? It isn’t. In today’s rapidly changing world, flexibility needs to trump longevity. Also, the very idea of what infrastructure is, and what it is for, has grown far beyond the simple ideas we had 35 years ago.
Are we moving on? Talking Infrastructure was created to address the problem of decision-making for ‘fit for the future’ infrastructure. What should be our new aims and objectives? And what new tools and techniques are we developing to address them? Unless we constantly adjust and learn, today’s Princes of Asset Management can easily turn into frogs – or, worse, into cane toads.
Here is another actual event demonstrating the immediate benefits of having an AM Plan.
Free gifts are never really free. This is why Joe Brown, the ageing art dealer, was finding it so difficult to get the Victorian Government to accept his offer of an outstanding art collection worth many millions of dollars. The capital and ongoing costs associated with housing and maintaining the collection were themselves quite extensive. The quality of the collection was not in dispute but what was in dispute was the value to the Victorian community of allocating scarce resources to an art collection, resources that could otherwise be spent on health or education or any of a large number of other uses.
The decision would, of course, be influenced by the Government’s strategy for community arts at the time, as well as the nature and extent of its existing portfolio. This AM information in the Plan would help to determine what this collection could add to the total art coverage. (Remember “All strategic questions are portfolio questions”)
The Strategy and associated plans were well documented, enabling the opportunity to acquire this collection to be compared with the existing methods of meeting the State’s Art and other strategies, as documented in the Plans. This made it possible to tell whether this was a ‘wanted’ or an ‘unwanted’ gift.
Without this information, elected members were at serious risk of being emotionally blackmailed into possibly poor community decisions. Protect your agency by protecting your elected members!
What other ways can you suggest to strengthen the case for AM Plans? Please share your experiences.
Lobbyists are the bane of a CEO’s life – and an Asset Manager’s! This presents another good use for an AM Plan. Unlike last week’s story where the council was well prepared with its AM Plan, in this instance it was not. But YOU could be!
The council members had been well educated in asset management thinking and were aware that the acquisition of an old, non-heritage listed building with limited functionality was not in the best interests of the community. But how did they deal with a small, but extremely vocal and active, lobby group that was pressing them to acquire it?
At this stage their asset management plan had not yet been constructed but suppose it was, then they could have shown the lobbyists that council’s resources were fully allocated to projects which had each been justified in terms of benefits and costs to the community and they could have said:
“We appreciate your interest but here is where council resources are going. All of these projects have been carefully analysed, costed and evaluated. Provide us with a costed evaluation and the benefits of your proposal for the wider community and if the benefit:cost analysis shows that it is better than the least of our current projects we will reconsider.”
This puts the onus back on the lobbyists to estimate both costs AND benefits and this will often be sufficient to stop the lobbying pressure but if the lobby group do demonstrate greater value then council knows that it is not disadvantaging the community by agreeing to their wishes.
Some many years later the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council in Victoria actively employed this approach – very successfully.
What experience have you had that would strengthen the short term benefits case for AM Plans?
While we get better at being able to produce AM Plans, CEOs seem less willing to use them. This is not surprising when you think about it – from their point of view! They are responsible for performance today.
They know that reducing long run renewal costs is good for the community but they are acutely aware of the costs involved which they see as reducing their ability to meet today’s requirements. So let’s show them that the short term benefits outweigh the short term costs and that, therefore, the long term benefits are just sheer bonus.
Consider the following. This actually happened.
A woman tripped on a cracked footpath and her lawyer encouraged her to sue the local council. In its defence the council said that yes, many of its footpaths were ageing and in need of repair. Many other assets were also in need of attention. Council was now facing the need to replace many assets constructed during growth times some many years ago. In total, the costs of renewal were far more than the council could manage in any one year’s budget. The Community had been consulted and the council had carried out a condition audit on its footpaths. It had scheduled the worst areas for immediate attention and had a program to address the rest over a period of years. Each year, the capital works list was re-prioritised to ensure that council was allocating its scarce resources to the areas most in need. They demonstrated this by reference to council’s asset management plans and condition audits.
The judge awarded the case to the council. In his summation,he said that the council was demonstrably not negligent in the way that it was tackling its repairs and maintenance. Not only did he find for the council, but he also awarded costs against the complainant. The woman then sued her lawyer for poor advice!
How else can we sell the short run advantages of AM Plans so that organisations want them (rather than simply hammering the mandating of AM which immediately sets it up as a cost to be minimised)?
What positive short term benefits from AM plans have you experienced?
I was listening to an interview with a theatre director who observed that in innovative theatre it is necessary to create an environment where, as he put it, it is ʻsafe to failʼ. Not everything you try will work, he went on to say, so you rely on the generosity of your fellow actors to go along with you and give it a try.
It reminded me of the time I was directing a small Jewish play – with all non-Jewish actors – and my lead actor, at the very last rehearsal, chose to try out a lovely, but unexpected, Jewish accent. It completely flummoxed the entire cast. But they recovered for the opening night which went well. They had the requisite generosity of spirit.
My question is: Do we? If somebody tries something new, do we immediately reject it? Do we work with them to round off the awkward edges or do we carp and criticise? If it fails do we nevertheless recognise the beneficial intent and work with them to find solutions? If I had not had the support of the great engineers I worked with I doubt I would have been able to create a way of addressing the problem of planning and asset renewal that we now see as infrastructure asset management.
Not everyone can, or wants to be, an innovator. But we can all focus on the purpose and work with those who are able to solve some of the pressing problems of today. Innovation is ‘doing different’ – but not for difference sake! Anybody suggesting an innovation needs to be able to explain what problem they are addressing. Then others who can see the wisdom of addressing that problem can join.
The position of Asset Management Team Leaders is critical here. Team Leaders need to ensure that failure is not fatal, but rather a learning device. In particular, we need to prepare the level above us to recognise and support innovation by making sure that our boss understands and supports.
I am sure we have all had experience of what not to do, but focusing there won’t help. Rather, what experience have you had that can help others develop and support an innovative spirit?
I have retired.
I thought I could never retire, but I have. I am still greatly interested in issues facing those who have to make decisions on our infrastructure but for Talking Infrastructure to continue and expand I have handed the reigns over to my younger board members and activists. They will now determine its future directions and I will watch with pride.
This does, however, free me up to turn my original website, amqi.com, created back in 1998, into something more than the redirection signpost it has been since creating Talking Infrastructure in 2016. With encouragement from our IT Director, Gregory Punshon, and our Lead Director, Ruth Wallsgrove, I am creating “Penny’s Place” on amqi.com which, when finished, will become an integral part of Talking Infrastructure. I will be unploading all 400 issues of Strategic Asset Management which were originally published between 1998 and 2014.
The SAM Issues are a great timeline of the issues and the practitioners who led the development of Asset Management over these years.
In addition, I am classifying the major articles, some 1200+ of them, to make your access easier. It is a big job and will take a few months but we will let you know when it is done.
You will be able to see what people were thinking when the practices we take for granted today were first established, why they did them and what they hoped to get out of them. You may even be able to determine where some may have gone off the rails and hopefully then be in a better position to course correct.
Of course, not all the issues we are dealing with today are old issues. Asset Management would be really boring if that were the case.
Its future history is in your hands.
This week my oldest and dearest friend, Bob Ritchie, the Secretary of the PAC, died after a valiant fight against Leukemia. I was able to see him just a few days before he passed on Tuesday last week. His influence on AM was immeasurable, but largely untold.
It was Bob who recognised, 40 years ago, the potential of the work I had done for predicting the likely cost and timing of water and sewer infrastructure renewal to be applied to all major state infrastructure and who convinced the Parliamentary Committee to engage me to do a research project where they had never done one before. He worked with me on all eight reports to Parliament and saw, where I did not, the opportunity of a vaguely defined job vacancy in public works to be converted to, as he put it, ‘anything I wanted’, which I interpreted as the opportunity to spread the AM message Australia-, and indeed, world-, wide.
A few years later he was my major support in developing the International AM Competitions and then again when I started Talking Infrastructure. He was always there, encouraging, supportive. So much he contributed! Yet hardly anyone in the AM community would know his name. True, he featured in ‘The Story of Asset Management‘ as he should, and I am glad I had the opportunity to say Thank You before he died.
Vale Bob Ritchie. 01.02.1942 – 11.03.2025
In the perennial tussle between the thinkers and the doers, I must confess that I have always been impatient with those who want to ‘get out and do’ before they have ‘sat back and thought’. They have been just as impatient with me!
I now realise that we are both motivated by the same goal – we want to avoid wasting our time.
Since I have confidence in my ability to design a suitable operational system to meet any objective, once I clearly know what that objective is, I avoid wasting time tackling the wrong objectives by sitting back and thinking about it.
The practical doers of this world do not want to waste their time thinking about objectives that may be “all very fine but not operational”. So they first insist that I show them that it can be done; then, and only then, will they be prepared to consider whether it should be done.
Recognising our common pressures, I will try to get less frustrated next time I encounter this reaction – and patiently explain ‘how’, even though I really want to get straight onto the ‘why’.
Today we seemingly all accept that we are short of time and thus feel constrained to give short shift to thought and planning. But how much of this lack of time is self-induced? How often do we need to re-do what we did in haste? Or spend time working around the problems that the haste engendered?.
Whichever camp you fall into – the thinkers or the do-ers – how do you cope with the frustration of dealing with ‘the other’ ?
Now that we have a great many courses and various trainings in asset management it is tempting to say that all asset managers should be ‘qualified’. But thinking about this I reflected on my own experience, starting from nothing, and I also remembered an interesting dinner one night when a colleague reported that his daughter had an ambition to be an asset manager like him.
“You can only do what I do, if you do what I did” replied her father, explaining that his daughter would need to do an engineering degree and further study as he had done.
“Is that really true?” asked his wife, who had home-schooled their extremely bright children. “Could she not learn by observation and questioning and work her way up from simple to more complex tasks? That is the way she has learnt everything else!”
You and me and, indeed, many asset managers have learnt much of their asset management this way. It is only within the last ten or fifteen years that we have started to teach the processes and techniques of asset management – in seminars, workshops, and in formal education.
Some of you would have a graduate degree in engineering, others would have come up through a background of construction, maintenance, finance, or property development/ management and may, or may not, have formal tertiary qualifications.
A couple of the best asset managers I have known had qualifications — but in nursing! One became Director of Capital Works in a Health Commission, the other an extremely practical policy director in the Commonwealth Government. They really understood the concept of service.
Or consider the Asset Manager I lunched with, who designed and published much sought after practical guidelines in asset management, decision making and life cycle costing, all without the background of a formal degree – just an inquiring mind, the interest to read widely, and the wit to apply what he read. He was, moreover, able to teach these techniques to others who also had no formal training and to design policy that encouraged their use. Now that IS an Asset Manager!
When we consider the number of excellent engineers we know, great at ‘doing’ things, but with little real interest in decision-making, then we would have to conclude that an engineering background may be useful but it is neither necessary nor sufficient.
“But surely we have to have properly qualified people?” Sure, but how do you qualify people to look for better ways to do what has always been done, indeed, better ways to do what they, themselves, have been taught to do? Qualifications and ability are not synonymous. We need to be more flexible and mandating certain qualifications or training will only hinder flexibility.
So yes, keep learning, get qualifications, but in a fast changing world, no set of qualifications can be allowed to be a stopping place. Or to stop us
In 2004 (Feb 14, The Buzz) ABC’s Radio National broadcast an interesting interview with an American post graduate student whose research work caused major security concerns, so much so that Richard Clarke, former White House cyberterrorism chief, declared that it should be burnt!
What did the student do to create such antagonism at security levels?
Critical Infrastructure Database
His thesis was on critical infrastructure in the United States, with a focus on information infrastructure. As part of his work in analysing the infrastructure and its vulnerabilities as preparation for determining a set of tools to deal with the vulnerabilities, the student put together an integrated database. The dataset consisted of a large collection of geo-spatial data on where the fibre optic lines were in the country, both long-haul lines that connect cities up, the metropolitan area networks within cities, switching centres and data warehouses that house and direct traffic on the network. The data carried on theses lines included a wide variety of critical sectors in the US economy and global economy including financial transactions, military command and control, emergency response, telephone calls, government communications. “Pretty much everything runs over fibre except for satellite transmissions” he said.
He worked quietly away at his research for a number of years – and by the way all of the data in his database was gathered from the public domain! – until the Washington Post wrote an article about his work, and then things started to get a little heated. Top security people then spoke with his university and wanted to know what security precautions were being taken with the database. The University asked government agencies what security precautions would be taken within their domain and then tried to replicate as best as they could within the university.
Safeguarding the Database.
This is what they did: The graduate explained “The computers that the data is housed on are not connected to any network and are in a secure room behind cipher locks. We have a vault that we take the removeable hard drives to and put them in there for storage.. and things along those lines.”
Integration
What I found interesting about this story is that as long as the data was available in a distributed form, on individual websites all over the country, there was no great hue and cry. Admittedly the student started his research in 1996, which pre-dated Sep 11.
However, the general lesson remains – integrated databases are more valuable because they allow us to do things that distributed databases don’t. In the student’s case it made it possible to analyse national vulnerabilities.
Recent Comments